42482 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

regulations in 1991 to reduce VOC 

emissions from coating and ink 

manufactures. As a requirement of the 

1990 CAA Amendments, the EPA 

published new Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) standards 

for miscellaneous coating 

manufacturing that were much more 

stringent than the existing PSCAA 

regulations (National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP): Miscellaneous Coating 

Manufacturing, December 11, 2003, 68 

FR 69164, MACT Subpart HHHHH). In 

2005, the PSCAA Board repealed 

Regulation II, Section 3.11, and is 

implementing and enforcing the more 

stringent MACT Subpart HHHHH 

NESHAP under a delegation agreement 

with the EPA. A copy of PSCAA’s 

NESHAP delegation agreement with 

EPA is included in the docket. The EPA 

and PSCAA have concurrent 

enforcement authority for MACT 

Subpart HHHHH. The EPA is therefore 

proposing to approve Ecology’s August 

2, 2006 request to remove Regulation II, 

Section 3.11 ‘‘Coatings and Ink 

Manufacturing’’ from the SIP. 

III. Summary of Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve, and 

incorporate by reference into the SIP, 

revisions to the PSCAA regulations 

found in Regulation I, Section 12.03 

‘‘Continuous Emission Monitoring 

Systems’’ adopted September 23, 2004; 

Regulation II, Section 1.05 ‘‘Special 

Definitions’’ adopted July 24, 2003; and 

Regulation II, Section 3.04 ‘‘Motor 

Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating 

Operations’’ adopted July 24, 2003, 

because they are consistent with CAA 

requirements. The EPA is proposing to 

remove from the Washington SIP 

Regulation II, Section 3.11 ‘‘Coatings 

and Ink Manufacturing,’’ because these 

emission sources are covered by more 

stringent federal standards. Lastly, the 

EPA is proposing to take no action on 

revisions to PSCAA Regulation I, Article 

13 ‘‘Solid Fuel Burning Device 

Standards’’; Regulation I Section 3.11 

‘‘Civil Penalties’’; Regulation I Section 

3.25 ‘‘Federal Regulation Reference 

Date’’; and Regulation II Section 2.07 

‘‘Gasoline Dispensing Facilities’’ 

contained in Ecology’s February 4, 2005 

and August 2, 2006 submittals because 

these regulations were subsequently 

revised by PSCAA. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. The 

SIP is not approved to apply in Indian 

country located in the State, except for 

non-trust land within the exterior 

boundaries of the Puyallup Indian 

Reservation, also known as the 1873 

Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe 

of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 

U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly 

provided state and local agencies in 

Washington authority over activities on 

non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey 

Area and EPA is therefore approving 

this SIP on such lands. Consistent with 

EPA policy, the EPA nonetheless 

provided a consultation opportunity to 

the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated June 

6, 2013. The EPA did not receive a 

request for consultation. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: July 2, 2013. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17007 Filed 7–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0413; FRL–9834–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Whenever new or revised national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

are promulgated, the CAA requires 

states to submit a plan for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan 

is required to address basic program 

elements including, but not limited to 

regulatory structure, monitoring, 

modeling, legal authority, and adequate 

resources necessary to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the standards. 

These elements are referred to as 

infrastructure requirements. The 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania made a 

submittal addressing the infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

This action proposes approval of 

portions of the submittal. This action is 

being taken under the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 15, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2013–0413 by one of the 

following methods: 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 42483 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0413, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, Air 

Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP30, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2013– 

0413. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Air Quality 

Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ruth Knapp, (215) 814–2191, or by 

email at knapp.ruth@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 24, 2012, the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(PADEP) submitted a revision to its SIP 

to satisfy the requirements of section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. 

I. Background 

On October 15, 2008, EPA 

substantially strengthened the primary 

and secondary lead NAAQS (hereafter 

the ‘‘2008 lead NAAQS’’), revising the 

level of the primary (health-based) 

standard from 1.5 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) to 0.15 mg/m3, measured 

as total suspended particles (TSP) and 

not to be exceeded with an averaging 

time of a rolling 3-month period. EPA 

also revised the secondary (welfarebased) standard to be identical to the 

primary standard, as well as the 

associated ambient air monitoring 

requirements. See 40 CFR 50.16. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. The contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. In 

particular, the data and analytical tools 

available at the time the state develops 

and submits the SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS affect the content of the 

submission. The contents of such SIP 

submissions may also vary depending 

upon what provisions the state’s 

existing SIP already contains. 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit SIPs 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or within such shorter period 

as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(1) 

provides the procedural and timing 

requirements for SIPs and section 

110(a)(2) requires states to address basic 

SIP elements such as requirements for 

monitoring, basic program requirements 

and legal authority that are designed to 

assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. More specifically, section 

110(a)(2) lists specific elements that 

states must meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. 

For the 2008 lead NAAQS, states 

typically have met many of the basic 

program elements required in CAA 

section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous lead NAAQS. Nevertheless, 

pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), 

states have to review and revise, as 

appropriate, their existing lead NAAQS 

SIPs to ensure that the SIPs are adequate 

to address the 2008 lead NAAQS. To 

assist states in meeting this statutory 

requirement, EPA issued a guidance on 

October 14, 2011, entitled, ‘‘Guidance 

on Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (hereafter 

the ‘‘2011 Lead Infrastructure 

Guidance’’), which lists the basic 

elements that states should include in 

their SIPs for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On September 24, 2012, PADEP 

provided a submittal to satisfy the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA for the 2008 lead NAAQS. This 

submittal addresses the following 

infrastructure elements, which EPA is 

proposing to approve: CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), 

(D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), 

(L), and (M), or portions thereof. EPA is 

taking separate action on the portion of 

(E)(ii) as it relates to CAA section 128 

(State Boards). Pennsylvania did not 

submit element (I) which pertains to the 

nonattainment requirements of part D, 

Title I of the CAA, since this element is 

not required to be submitted by the 3- 

year submission deadline of CAA 

section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed 

in a separate process. 

In accordance with the decision of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, 

the EPA at this time is not treating the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as 

a required SIP submission. See EME 

Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 

F.3d 7 (DC Cir. 2012), reh’g denied 2013 

U.S. App. LEXIS 1623 (Jan. 24. 2013). 

However, even if the submission is not 

considered to be ‘‘required,’’ the EPA 

must act on the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP 

submission from Pennsylvania because 

section 110(k)(2) of the CAA requires 

the EPA to act on all SIP submissions. 

Unless the EME Homer City decision is 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
42484 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1The RFA defines ‘‘small organization’’ as 

meaning ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field . . . ,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction’’ as meaning 

‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, 

villages, school districts, or special districts, with 

a population of less than fifty thousand. . . .’’ 5 

U.S.C. 601(4) & (5). 

reversed or otherwise modified by the 

Supreme Court, states are not required 

to submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the 

EPA has quantified their obligations 

under that section. In this action, EPA 

is proposing to act on the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submission. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

following section 110(a)(2) elements of 

Pennsylvania’s SIP revision: (A), (B), 

(C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E)(i), 

(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), 

or portions thereof. EPA will take 

separate action on section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). Pennsylvania’s SIP 

revision provides the basic program 

elements specified in CAA section 

110(a)(2) necessary to implement, 

maintain, and enforce the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. This SIP revision was 

submitted on September 24, 2012. This 

action does not include section 

110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains 

to the nonattainment requirements of 

part D, Title I of the CAA, since this 

element is not required to be submitted 

by the 3-year submission deadline of 

CAA section 110(a)(1), and will be 

addressed in a separate process. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule, which 

satisfies certain infrastructure 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA for the 2008 lead NAAQS for the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Lead, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: July 2, 2013. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17020 Filed 7–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

49 CFR Chapter X 

[Docket No. EP 719] 

Small Entity Size Standards Under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board 

(Board or STB), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed size 

standards for purposes of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) and request for 

public comment. 

SUMMARY: The Board is proposing to 

define ‘‘small business’’ for the purpose 

of RFA analyses as including only those 

rail carriers with revenues that would 

bring them within the definition of a 

Class III rail carrier. 

DATES: Comments are due by August 15, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Ziehm at (202) 245–0391. 

Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

(800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The RFA 

requires agencies to consider the impact 

of their regulatory proposals on small 

entities. The RFA defines ‘‘small entity’’ 

as having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ 1

5 U.S.C. 601(6). Generally, a small 

business is a business concern that is 

independently owned and operated, and 

is not dominant in its field of operation. 

5 U.S.C. 601(3); 15 U.S.C. 632. The 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

has developed size standards to carry 

out the purposes of the Small Business 

Act. An agency may establish other 

definitions for ‘‘small business’’ that are 

appropriate to the agency’s activities 

after consultation with the SBA’s Office 

of Advocacy and opportunity for public 

comment. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 

Pursuant to its statutory authority, the 

SBA promulgated regulations that 

clarify the term ‘‘small business’’ by 

industry, using number of employees or 

annual income as criteria. Under these 

regulations, line-haul railroads with 

1,500 or fewer employees and short line 

railroads with 500 or fewer employees 

constitute small entities. 13 CFR 

121.201 (industry subsector 482). The 

Board proposes to establish a size 

standard for purposes of RFA analysis 

for rail carriers subject to our 

jurisdiction based on annual operating 

revenues rather than number of 

employees. 

The Board was created by the ICC 

Termination Act of 1995, Public Law 

104–88, 109 Stat. 803 (1995), on January 

1, 1996, to assume some functions of the 

Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), 

which was terminated by that same Act. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1